Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread Andi Kleen
Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I meant a netstat bug of course, sorry :( > > It fails to parse /proc/net/netstat , because TcpExt line is bigger > than 1024 chars. guilty -- i wrote that code a long time ago. > > To correct it, we might enlarge buf1[] and buf2[] from 1024 to 2048 in

Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > It fails to parse /proc/net/netstat , because TcpExt line is bigger than > 1024 chars. Good catch. Perhaps it's time someone rewrote this in netlink or add this to ss. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email:

Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread Eric Dumazet
Eric Dumazet a écrit : Herbert Xu a écrit : On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:48:54PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: Hmm. "netstat -s" from etch (i386) and etch (x86_64) work fine for me. Same version, same architecture. Strange... Interesting. What does your /proc/net/snmp file look

Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread Eric Dumazet
Herbert Xu a écrit : On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:48:54PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: Hmm. "netstat -s" from etch (i386) and etch (x86_64) work fine for me. Same version, same architecture. Strange... Interesting. What does your /proc/net/snmp file look like? And what does nets

Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:48:54PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > > Hmm. "netstat -s" from etch (i386) and etch (x86_64) work > fine for me. Same version, same architecture. Strange... Interesting. What does your /proc/net/snmp file look like? And what does netstat -s actually pro

Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:33:25 +0800), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:32:43PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > > > > Hmm? netstat 1.42 (net-tools 1.60) seems fine. > > Which netstat are you using? > > The one from Debian e

Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:32:43PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > > Hmm? netstat 1.42 (net-tools 1.60) seems fine. > Which netstat are you using? The one from Debian etch: $ netstat -V net-tools 1.60 netstat 1.42 (2001-04-15) Fred Baumgarten, Alan Cox, Bernd Eckenfels, Phil Blundell, T

Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread Eric Dumazet
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 a écrit : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:14:29 +0800), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: It looks like the addition of UDP-Lite has upset netstat: $ netstat -s Ip: : Udp: 30 packets received 0 packets to unknown port received.

Re: UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:14:29 +0800), Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > It looks like the addition of UDP-Lite has upset netstat: > > $ netstat -s > Ip: : > Udp: > 30 packets received > 0 packets to unknown port received. > 0 packet receive errors

UDP-Lite and /proc/net/snmp

2007-11-10 Thread Herbert Xu
Hi Dave: It looks like the addition of UDP-Lite has upset netstat: $ netstat -s Ip: 1257344 total packets received 6 with invalid addresses 0 forwarded 0 incoming packets discarded 1257338 incoming packets delivered 1257151 requests sent out Icmp: 0 ICMP messages recei